Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[zugzwang]

David Mo wrote:

There are neither independent nor direct testimonies of almost all philosophers quoted by Sextus Empiricus and nobody doubts of their existence. That’s why your main objection seems to be: “discredited by being filled with manifestly untrue fictional claims in virtually every sentence where they ever mention Jesus”.

This is literally wrong. Many reports of the Gospels fit well with a normal person and aren’t “manifestly untrue”. A Jewish prophet could live in Galilea in the first Century and be crucified by Romans. There is nothing unbelievable in this.

It's an interesting point, since some scholars argue that this is how charismatic preachers were described at the time - they did healings and exorcisms, and taught people.

I suppose the argument of IanS is that since we know that healing and exorcism don't actually happen, therefore the accounts are discredited, whereas the other view is that that's how some preachers were perceived and described. I think this is one of the dangers of anachronism.

I forgot to say that plenty of people today are described as doing healing and exorcism - we might doubt that they actually do, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Craig B]

Could you give another example of a Jewish prophet crucified by the Romans?

How many people are described as "prophets"? According to the Gospels, Jesus was executed as "King of the Jews" that is, for rebellion and attempted usurpation of imperial authority. Not explicitly for being a prophet, although no doubt his followers saw him as one. Perhaps many other of the many people executed by the Romans in those days were regarded as prophets too, but by the Romans as mere dissidents and rebels. We may look at the words attributed to Gamaliel in Acts 5.

36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.

Were these people "prophets" to their followers? Is that what "claiming to be somebody" means? If so, I have given you another example of a prophet being executed, or at least killed, by the Romans.

 

[tsig]

How many people are described as "prophets"? According to the Gospels, Jesus was executed as "King of the Jews" that is, for rebellion and attempted usurpation of imperial authority. Not explicitly for being a prophet, although no doubt his followers saw him as one. Perhaps many other of the many people executed by the Romans in those days were regarded as prophets too, but by the Romans as mere dissidents and rebels. We may look at the words attributed to Gamaliel in Acts 5. Were these people "prophets" to their followers? Is that what "claiming to be somebody" means? If so, I have given you another example of a prophet being executed, or at least killed, by the Romans.

Thank you.

 

[IanS]

Oh, it's a "myth" now, is it? Previously it was to be compared with Harry Potter. That is not a "myth", but consciously composed fiction. That's what I was addressing, not "myth" which is a far more complex entity.

Who said anything about a group, anyway? But yes, myth can develop naturally without a "group". Fiction on the other hand - like Harry Potter - DOES need a group, or as in that case, a single author, to bring it into being.

You are trying to argue semantics, and still never addressing the fatal issue of the real-HJ argument (which is it's complete lack of any credible supporting evidence). "Myths" are "fiction" ... both words describe untrue accounts.

All that tsig was pointing out is that untrue biblical beliefs/stories about Jesus can perfectly well arise just from peoples mistaken, fanciful, uneducated and superstitious beliefs, and not necessarily from some individual deliberately dreaming up some entirely false lies just for the sake of some perceived gain in deceiving the people around him. It does not need to be some dastardly plot.

In the Jesus case it's perfectly obvious how and why a false superstitious belief like that may have arisen. Because for centuries people had been quite certain from their OT that Yahweh would send a saving messiah to fulfil OT prophecy and guide the faithful in the now imminent "end times". And for preachers like Paul and the gospel writers, their belief in Jesus was precisely that historic legendary belief of the Jews. And just to be absolutely certain that was indeed what Paul and the gospel authors were doing, their writing even tells you repeatedly and continuously that they were obtaining all their beliefs from what they thought had been written long before in the divine truths of their OT.

But this is again an avoidance of the need for some genuine credible evidence of a real human Jesus. So …

… what is the claimed evidence of a real human Jesus?

If you say it’s the bible, then that is frankly so utterly ridiculous that there really is no sensible credible discussion left to have here (if there ever was any).

Believe the bible as evidence if you wish. But that is most certainly not a credible source of any evidence of a living Jesus. That would just be purely and simply a belief drawn from uneducated 2000 year old religious superstitious preaching of the supernatural.

 

[dejudge]

How many people are described as "prophets"? According to the Gospels, Jesus was executed as "King of the Jews" that is, for rebellion and attempted usurpation of imperial authority.

Your statement is absolutely wrong. Your post is another example of Chinese Whispers.

It is a complete fallacy that Jesus was executed for rebellion and attempted usurpation of imperial authority.

In the Gospel, Pilate, the FINAL arbiter, found NO FAULT with Jesus and had NO idea that Jesus committed any crime.

In fact, Pilate found that the witnesses against Jesus were false and even attempted to release Jesus in the Gospels.

Luke 23:4 KJV---Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

John 18:38 KJV--Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Please, please stop your open blatant mis-representation of the story of the Son of God in the Gospels.

Please, I cannot accept Chinese Whispers.

 

[dejudge]

This means any argument that Jesus was a myth based on the December 25 date is doomed from the start because that part of the story isn't even in the Bible and didn't appear until well into the 4th century."

Actually the numerous different dates given for the birth of Jesus does not help the HJ argument at all. Effectively, it is shown that everything we know about Jesus was made up or there was no actually documemted history of Jesus from the start.

If in the 4th century people begin to invent the 25th December as the date of Jesus' birth then this suggests that there was never any actual established date before.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Again, where are your sources for persons who were or believed to be Messiahs prophesied by Jewish Apocalypticists.

Scholars who study the period, like L. Michael White and Bart Ehrman. I'm not the one making a claim. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the historians.

What of your claim that no one expected a messiah to arrive on the scene until 66 CE. Can you provide some evidence to support this?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Actually the numerous different dates given for the birth of Jesus does not help the HJ argument at all. Effectively, it is shown that everything we know about Jesus was made up or there was no actually documemted history of Jesus from the start.

If in the 4th century people begin to invent the 25th December as the date of Jesus' birth then this suggests that there was never any actual established date before.

No established date does not mean that there was no date. There are many figures from ancient history who's dates of birth and death are not known.

 

[dejudge]

Scholars who study the period, like L. Michael White and Bart Ehrman. I'm not the one making a claim. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the historians.

What of your claim that no one expected a messiah to arrive on the scene until 66 CE. Can you provide some evidence to support this?

You must present the sources that show the persons you mentioned were or was believed to be messiahs prophesied by Jewish apocalypticists.

You are the one who made the claim so you are obligated to show the evidence.

Again, we have more Chinese Whispers. Who told you Bart Ehrman was an historian?

 

[dejudge]

No established date does not mean that there was no date. There are many figures from ancient history who's dates of birth and death are not known.

The numerous dates for the birth of Jesus does not help the HJ argument when it took hundreds of years to come up with the most unlikely date.

If shepherds do not watch over their flock in the December then the 25th December date for the birth of Jesus is fiction.

But in any event, if you use gLuke to determine the most likely date for the birth of Jesus then you will encounter another problem.

It was the Son of a Holy Ghost that was born on the night the shepherds watched their flock.

What fiction!! What monstrous fables!

Jesus was born on the 25th of NEVER.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is absolutely wrong. Your post is another example of Chinese Whispers.

It is a complete fallacy that Jesus was executed for rebellion and attempted usurpation of imperial authority.

In the Gospel, Pilate, the FINAL arbiter, found NO FAULT with Jesus and had NO idea that Jesus committed any crime.

If the "final arbiter" decides you're innocent, you get acquitted, not strung up. And Pilate wrote on a notice attached to the cross - so it is said - that Jesus was "King of the Jews". There are evident fictitious elements in the story of the various trials to which Jesus was allegedly subjected. The motive for such fictions would be to exculpate the Romans and put the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews. This was successful. The stories of the merciful Pilate are absurd, considering what we know about him. Here's the Jewish author Philo:

(Pilate) feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, (not) wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects.

Philo, Embassy to Gaius. My bold.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The numerous dates for the birth of Jesus does not help the HJ argument when it took hundreds of years to come up with the most unlikely date.

If shepherds do not watch over their flock in the December then the 25th December date for the birth of Jesus is fiction.

But in any event, if you use gLuke to determine the most likely date for the birth of Jesus then you will encounter another problem.

It was the Son of a Holy Ghost that was born on the night the shepherds watched their flock.

What fiction!! What monstrous fables!

Jesus was born on the 25th of NEVER.

Again, you seem to have great difficulty with understanding how mythologies can be attached to real people. You do realize that many Christian holidays were appropriated from pagan traditions, yes?

So what's so unlikely about Christians repurposing a popular holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus that it inspires such histrionics about "monstrous fables".

Tell me, specifically, what you find to be impossible about this scenario:

Jesus lives and dies, but none of his illiterate followers record his birth date, assuming they even knew it. Early authors like Paul and the author of Mark never even consider Jesus' birth worth mentioning.

The author of Luke, seeking to tie Jesus in with certain messianic prophecy, creates a narrative of his birth, including an angelic declaration made to some shepherds, possibly as symbolism. After all, David was said to have been a shepherd. But no date is mentioned.

Then in the 4th Century, December 25 is adopted as the day to celebrate Jesus' birth, even though there is only a 1 in 365 chance that he was actually born on that date.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

You are trying to argue semantics, and still never addressing the fatal issue of the real-HJ argument (which is it's complete lack of any credible supporting evidence). "Myths" are "fiction" ... both words describe untrue accounts.

All that tsig was pointing out is that untrue biblical beliefs/stories about Jesus can perfectly well arise just from peoples mistaken, fanciful, uneducated and superstitious beliefs, and not necessarily from some individual deliberately dreaming up some entirely false lies just for the sake of some perceived gain in deceiving the people around him. It does not need to be some dastardly plot.

This is true. Not that it gets us much further forward with the historicity question. But it still leaves the question of how there can exist so many accounts purporting to tell the story of his earthly life without any intent to deceive on anyone's part. If there never was a HJ at all, it requires a vivid imagination to honestly come up with even one account like that. To make it convincing enough to gather followers to a new cult based around the story is an even more remarkable achievement.

In the Jesus case it's perfectly obvious how and why a false superstitious belief like that may have arisen. Because for centuries people had been quite certain from their OT that Yahweh would send a saving messiah to fulfil OT prophecy and guide the faithful in the now imminent "end times". And for preachers like Paul and the gospel writers, their belief in Jesus was precisely that historic legendary belief of the Jews. And just to be absolutely certain that was indeed what Paul and the gospel authors were doing, their writing even tells you repeatedly and continuously that they were obtaining all their beliefs from what they thought had been written long before in the divine truths of their OT.

Or alternatively, attempting to find precedent and justification for their claims, involving some pretty dramatic departures from Jewish tradition. Not that I think it's as obvious as you make out, but the appeal to OT texts could be read as supporting either side of the debate, depending on whether it was the motivation for writing or the intended explanation for what was reported.

But this is again an avoidance of the need for some genuine credible evidence of a real human Jesus. So …

… what is the claimed evidence of a real human Jesus?

If you say it’s the bible, then that is frankly so utterly ridiculous that there really is no sensible credible discussion left to have here (if there ever was any).

Believe the bible as evidence if you wish. But that is most certainly not a credible source of any evidence of a living Jesus. That would just be purely and simply a belief drawn from uneducated 2000 year old religious superstitious preaching of the supernatural.

Reading through this thread, this seems to be a recurring theme - fighting over definitions of evidence and burden of proof. The Bible does provide prima facie evidence, not just because it was written, but because the gospels were considered to be genuine accounts of a real person. For anyone who wishes to assert a mythical Jesus, there has to be at least some attempt to convincingly explain how this came about, rather than simply dismissing anything mentioned in the Bible as untrue. Sure, there's plenty of hagiography and peculiar added details, and not just in the NT, but that doesn't mean there aren't real people and events buried deep down beneath.

As for me, I'm with davefoc - there's no reliable way of knowing either way. I don't find it completely inconceivable that the whole story could have been fabricated, but it doesn't quite sit right with how I read the NT and the development of the early church. Then again, there is no reliable evidence of a HJ either - it just seems more likely as a starting point for a cult than a completely fictitious person. What I find odd is that people can get so worked up about an unknowable question like this, when it has no practical effect at all. We all agree that if there was a HJ, he was just another preacher who attracted a following. No believer is going to suddenly have their eyes opened by invoking a mythical Jesus, in fact quite the reverse. So what's at stake, apart from pride?

 

[zugzwang]

That's a good question - what's at stake?

Some people, like T'ON, seem to think that some mythicists are following a kind of covert anti-Christian agenda - in other words, knock down Jesus, and you knock down Christianity. But I don't know if that's true, for the simple reason, I've only chatted with a handful of mythicists, although they did seem to be anti-Christian.

I suppose for people like T'ON, it's the question of history as a discipline, and historical method, which they see as being impugned by mythicists.

But I think it must be a conflict over Christianity really. If we were debating the historicity of Buddha, it would not generate this amount of heat, would it?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Why do physicists get upset when people who know nothing about math or physics turn up on here and explain their paradigm-shifting theories which show Einstein was wrong?

There are plenty of people here who know something about how ancient history is studied and about the academic discipline of Biblical studies (which is NOT the same as Christian apologetics). For such people it is just as infuriating when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about claims there is 'no evidence' for a HJ, or that anyone who considers it most likely that there *was* a HJ has a covertly apologetic agenda, especially the Jewish and agnostic or atheist scholars, as it is for a physicist to be faced with Timecube or similar. It's generally at the 'not even wrong' level that makes it hard even to engage with the mythicist, because they know so little but are so dogmatic about it. To mention just a few points:

1. Historical records are never complete, and they get less so the further back you go. We wouldn't expect to have anything like full Roman administrative records for the important stuff they did, never mind for the minor peasantry, the class to which Jesus belonged. We similarly have no contemporary records for most of the important figures of antiquity. Did Socrates exist? Pythagoras? Both (along with most of the other ancient philosophers) are only known through the writings of their followers.

2. The idea that people *must* have been deliberately intending to deceive when they wrote miracle stories about Jesus is ridiculous. In a pre-scientific culture walking on water, healings, even resurrection (eg, seeing ghosts) seemed as likely as, for instance, gravity or the sun rising each morning. I have no doubt that Paul really believed he had met the risen Christ, for instance. And the Gospel miracle narratives are neither evidence of a nefarious plan to deceive the populace nor particularly surprising in context. As has already been pointed out, Geza Vermes (Jewish scholar) argued that the Jesus stories are entirely congruent with other first-century Jewish messiahs, such as Hanina Ben Dosa. Writing stories about miracle-working charismatic figures was kind of what first-century Jews, or a lot of them, did. Yet nobody argues that ben Dosa or similar figures were myths. As for the reliability of Biblical testimony: the Bible is as reliable as most other sources from the time. All other sources would come from the same, supernaturalist, worldview. There was no distinction between 'religious' texts and 'history' or 'record' as we know it today. ALL ancient texts, from the most devotional to the most 'philosophical', 'literary', or 'historical' must be read with this knowledge. Josephus's History is as ideological as the Book of Daniel or the Gospels. It simply isn't the case that some writers or sources can be relied upon to be more 'objective' than others, since 'objectivity' is a modern obsession.

3. It shows real ignorance of the scholarship to assert that Jewish apocalypticism is unique to the Jesus stories, or that it began there. Jewish apocalyptic is a hot topic in scholarship right now, with the usual discussions being about how central it was to Judaism from the Persian period or even before, up to the Rabbis, and how it related to the themes of covenant and law which are often taken to define early Judaism. The book of Daniel is one of the earliest and clearest examples of Jewish apocalyptic, and dates to the second century BCE. The deuterocanonical books of the Bible and the Biblical pseudepigrapha date from around and after this, including into the Christian era, and are full of apocalyptic: the books of Maccabees, Baruch and Enoch are particularly well-known, but there are plenty of others. In some cases there is still fierce argument as to whether the later examples came from Jewish or Christian circles, so close are the apocalyptic beliefs of early Christianity and second-Temple Judaism.

4. Similar ignorance is shown in those who think that Jesus was somehow the first or special to be called the Messiah. Jewish writings of this period are full of messianic expectation, and scholars are again still arguing about the relationship of messianism to apocalyptism (and to ideas of the covenant). The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, contain explicit expectations of not one but two messianic figures (a priest and a king). 'Messiah' (Gk: 'Christ') only means 'the anointed one', ie, one with a particular sending and mission from God, and this might help in understanding why applying the title of Messiah/Christ to Jesus makes no real claims beyond that he had such a mission. In later Christianity it has acquired the flavor of a surname for Jesus, with overtones of his uniqueness, but at the time it meant nothing of the sort.

5. I personally think that part of the problem is that from as early as the second century onwards both Christians and Jews had an investment in seeking to differentiate their two faiths. So the early Rabbis took out of Judaism the apocalyptic elements, possibly because they seemed too close to Christianity. And with the fall of the Temple in 70CE the death knell of Jewish Christianity sounded. As the Ebionite and other Jewish Christian sects fell into extinction, it was all too easy for Christians to forget and then anathematize the Jewish origin of their faith. But in fact, when Paul and the Gospel writers were writing, Christianity was considered almost entirely a sect of Judaism (John's Gospel, in particular, bears witness to the strife between the Jews who followed Christ and those more mainstream who seem to have been in disagreement with them). Jewish scholars have recently begun to face the uncomfortable reality that the only Jewish Pharisee whose writings survive is Paul and to read him for clues as to Judaism of the period, while Christian scholars have had to learn to set aside the Reformation-based ideas of Paul as Christian crusader against 'legalistic' Judaism and study his writings in their proper, first-century Jewish, context. If you think of the HJ as a 'Christian' who started his own religion out of whole cloth then you might start to think that all these weird myths about him show he was entirely made up. But if you look at the Jewish context he and the early Christian cult really aren't very surprising at all.

6. Finally, the idea that there were Greek mystery religions worshipping a dying and rising Messiah, and this forms the basis of the Jesus story, was popular around the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries, in the so-called 'History of Religions' school (Bousset's argument in 1913 that the New Testament bears witness to a Greek 'Kyrios Christos cult' is perhaps the most prominent example). However, it's been comprehensively debunked ever since about the middle of the twentieth century, on the rather strong grounds that there is no evidence anywhere that such a cult ever existed. The scholars who thought it did were biased by the assumptions I mentioned above (Judaism and Christianity were always entirely separate faiths), and thought that Judaism was characterized only by obeying the law, so they couldn't fit a Messiah or resurrection into first-century Judaism. Subsequent scholarship showed not only that these elements could fit into Judaism, but also that they are nowhere to be found in the Greek world or religions. There is far, far less evidence (ie, none) of a Greek dying and rising messianic figure than there is of the HJ.

There - that's some of the reasons why historians and Biblical scholars will at best give a facepalm and at worst get really irritated when faced with another request for 'evidence' of the HJ. It's about method and preponderance of indicators and most plausible hypotheses.

I find Second Temple Judaism (or early Judaism, as it's more properly called) an utterly fascinating period, not least because it gives the background to the rise of Christianity and the Jesus stories. It is a whole discipline in itself and spans Jewish, Christian and agnostic or atheist scholars. A good introductory text is Lester Grabbe's Introduction to Second Temple Judaism, or anything by John J Collins, particularly his introductory texts on early Judaism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jewish apocalyptism (entitled The Apocalyptic Imagination).

 

[tsig]

Why do physicists get upset when people who know nothing about math or physics turn up on here and explain their paradigm-shifting theories which show Einstein was wrong?
There are plenty of people here who know something about how ancient history is studied and about the academic discipline of Biblical studies (which is NOT the same as Christian apologetics). For such people it is just as infuriating when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about claims there is 'no evidence' for a HJ, or that anyone who considers it most likely that there *was* a HJ has a covertly apologetic agenda, especially the Jewish and agnostic or atheist scholars, as it is for a physicist to be faced with Timecube or similar. It's generally at the 'not even wrong' level that makes it hard even to engage with the mythicist, because they know so little but are so dogmatic about it. To mention just a few points:

1. Historical records are never complete, and they get less so the further back you go. We wouldn't expect to have anything like full Roman administrative records for the important stuff they did, never mind for the minor peasantry, the class to which Jesus belonged. We similarly have no contemporary records for most of the important figures of antiquity. Did Socrates exist? Pythagoras? Both (along with most of the other ancient philosophers) are only known through the writings of their followers.

2. The idea that people *must* have been deliberately intending to deceive when they wrote miracle stories about Jesus is ridiculous. In a pre-scientific culture walking on water, healings, even resurrection (eg, seeing ghosts) seemed as likely as, for instance, gravity or the sun rising each morning. I have no doubt that Paul really believed he had met the risen Christ, for instance. And the Gospel miracle narratives are neither evidence of a nefarious plan to deceive the populace nor particularly surprising in context. As has already been pointed out, Geza Vermes (Jewish scholar) argued that the Jesus stories are entirely congruent with other first-century Jewish messiahs, such as Hanina Ben Dosa. Writing stories about miracle-working charismatic figures was kind of what first-century Jews, or a lot of them, did. Yet nobody argues that ben Dosa or similar figures were myths. As for the reliability of Biblical testimony: the Bible is as reliable as most other sources from the time. All other sources would come from the same, supernaturalist, worldview. There was no distinction between 'religious' texts and 'history' or 'record' as we know it today. ALL ancient texts, from the most devotional to the most 'philosophical', 'literary', or 'historical' must be read with this knowledge. Josephus's History is as ideological as the Book of Daniel or the Gospels. It simply isn't the case that some writers or sources can be relied upon to be more 'objective' than others, since 'objectivity' is a modern obsession.

3. It shows real ignorance of the scholarship to assert that Jewish apocalypticism is unique to the Jesus stories, or that it began there. Jewish apocalyptic is a hot topic in scholarship right now, with the usual discussions being about how central it was to Judaism from the Persian period or even before, up to the Rabbis, and how it related to the themes of covenant and law which are often taken to define early Judaism. The book of Daniel is one of the earliest and clearest examples of Jewish apocalyptic, and dates to the second century BCE. The deuterocanonical books of the Bible and the Biblical pseudepigrapha date from around and after this, including into the Christian era, and are full of apocalyptic: the books of Maccabees, Baruch and Enoch are particularly well-known, but there are plenty of others. In some cases there is still fierce argument as to whether the later examples came from Jewish or Christian circles, so close are the apocalyptic beliefs of early Christianity and second-Temple Judaism.

4. Similar ignorance is shown in those who think that Jesus was somehow the first or special to be called the Messiah. Jewish writings of this period are full of messianic expectation, and scholars are again still arguing about the relationship of messianism to apocalyptism (and to ideas of the covenant). The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, contain explicit expectations of not one but two messianic figures (a priest and a king). 'Messiah' (Gk: 'Christ') only means 'the anointed one', ie, one with a particular sending and mission from God, and this might help in understanding why applying the title of Messiah/Christ to Jesus makes no real claims beyond that he had such a mission. In later Christianity it has acquired the flavor of a surname for Jesus, with overtones of his uniqueness, but at the time it meant nothing of the sort.

5. I personally think that part of the problem is that from as early as the second century onwards both Christians and Jews had an investment in seeking to differentiate their two faiths. So the early Rabbis took out of Judaism the apocalyptic elements, possibly because they seemed too close to Christianity. And with the fall of the Temple in 70CE the death knell of Jewish Christianity sounded. As the Ebionite and other Jewish Christian sects fell into extinction, it was all too easy for Christians to forget and then anathematize the Jewish origin of their faith. But in fact, when Paul and the Gospel writers were writing, Christianity was considered almost entirely a sect of Judaism (John's Gospel, in particular, bears witness to the strife between the Jews who followed Christ and those more mainstream who seem to have been in disagreement with them). Jewish scholars have recently begun to face the uncomfortable reality that the only Jewish Pharisee whose writings survive is Paul and to read him for clues as to Judaism of the period, while Christian scholars have had to learn to set aside the Reformation-based ideas of Paul as Christian crusader against 'legalistic' Judaism and study his writings in their proper, first-century Jewish, context. If you think of the HJ as a 'Christian' who started his own religion out of whole cloth then you might start to think that all these weird myths about him show he was entirely made up. But if you look at the Jewish context he and the early Christian cult really aren't very surprising at all.

6. Finally, the idea that there were Greek mystery religions worshipping a dying and rising Messiah, and this forms the basis of the Jesus story, was popular around the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries, in the so-called 'History of Religions' school (Bousset's argument in 1913 that the New Testament bears witness to a Greek 'Kyrios Christos cult' is perhaps the most prominent example). However, it's been comprehensively debunked ever since about the middle of the twentieth century, on the rather strong grounds that there is no evidence anywhere that such a cult ever existed. The scholars who thought it did were biased by the assumptions I mentioned above (Judaism and Christianity were always entirely separate faiths), and thought that Judaism was characterized only by obeying the law, so they couldn't fit a Messiah or resurrection into first-century Judaism. Subsequent scholarship showed not only that these elements could fit into Judaism, but also that they are nowhere to be found in the Greek world or religions. There is far, far less evidence (ie, none) of a Greek dying and rising messianic figure than there is of the HJ.

There - that's some of the reasons why historians and Biblical scholars will at best give a facepalm and at worst get really irritated when faced with another request for 'evidence' of the HJ. It's about method and preponderance of indicators and most plausible hypotheses.

I find Second Temple Judaism (or early Judaism, as it's more properly called) an utterly fascinating period, not least because it gives the background to the rise of Christianity and the Jesus stories. It is a whole discipline in itself and spans Jewish, Christian and agnostic or atheist scholars. A good introductory text is Lester Grabbe's Introduction to Second Temple Judaism, or anything by John J Collins, particularly his introductory texts on early Judaism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jewish apocalyptism (entitled The Apocalyptic Imagination).

You are implying that the HJ is as firmly established as E=MC².

 

[sleepy_lioness]

You are implying that the HJ is as firmly established as E=MC².

Yes, it occurred to me afterwards that this was a legitimate criticism of my analogy. I wasn't intending to imply that the HJ is as firmly established as relativity. The two disciplines of history and physics are so different that such a comparison is impossible to make (I would say that the existence of the HJ is about as firmly established as any of the facts we know about ancient history, however).

My analogy wasn't about this, it was an attempt to answer the question, posed several times in this thread, of why those who know something about ancient history and Biblical studies get annoyed at the mythicists. It's about the nature of scholarly discourse.

ETA: If you've dedicated your life, or a substantial part of it, to learning in depth about a particular field because you care about it and want to know the truth about it, dammit, and you've spent your youth rote-learning calculus or ancient languages in order to understand it, then people who come and ask questions which reveal a basic ignorance or misunderstanding of some really fundamental stuff (whether that's the speed of light or the existence of Jewish apocalyptic literature), but insist they know better than you about it, will annoy you. That's human nature. It will annoy you even further if they then put your disagreement down to you having a nefarious 'agenda', whether that be some kind of conspiracy of scientists or Christian apologetic. And if they combine this with assumptions that are really, really wrong but which they entirely refuse to see (whether that's that things on a quantum level work the same as on a macro level, or that ancient documents can be read in precisely the same way that we would read Government records today), the frustration gets to pretty high levels. Human nature again.

 

[Brainache]

Why do physicists get upset when people who know nothing about math or physics turn up on here and explain their paradigm-shifting theories which show Einstein was wrong?

There are plenty of people here who know something about how ancient history is studied and about the academic discipline of Biblical studies (which is NOT the same as Christian apologetics). For such people it is just as infuriating when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about claims there is 'no evidence' for a HJ, or that anyone who considers it most likely that there *was* a HJ has a covertly apologetic agenda, especially the Jewish and agnostic or atheist scholars, as it is for a physicist to be faced with Timecube or similar. It's generally at the 'not even wrong' level that makes it hard even to engage with the mythicist, because they know so little but are so dogmatic about it. To mention just a few points:

...{snip}
I find Second Temple Judaism (or early Judaism, as it's more properly called) an utterly fascinating period, not least because it gives the background to the rise of Christianity and the Jesus stories. It is a whole discipline in itself and spans Jewish, Christian and agnostic or atheist scholars. A good introductory text is Lester Grabbe's Introduction to Second Temple Judaism, or anything by John J Collins, particularly his introductory texts on early Judaism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jewish apocalyptism (entitled The Apocalyptic Imagination).

Excellent post and appropriately enough for an HJ thread, you nailed it.

 

[IanS]

There are neither independent nor direct testimonies of almost all philosophers quoted by Sextus Empiricus and nobody doubts of their existence. That’s why your main objection seems to be: “discredited by being filled with manifestly untrue fictional claims in virtually every sentence where they ever mention Jesus”.



This is literally wrong. Many reports of the Gospels fit well with a normal person and aren’t “manifestly untrue”. A Jewish prophet could live in Galilea in the first Century and be crucified by Romans. There is nothing unbelievable in this.

David - I’m surprised at you bringing up this argument here. You do realise that this is an argument frequently trotted out by Christian apologists in defence of a real Jesus? Do you really not realise why that argument is fallacious and the analogy between such people and Jesus is not valid?

OK, I have explained the reasons several times before in these threads, but briefly -

- if you are comparing the case of Jesus to that of any ancient philosophers or rulers of whom it was said they could perform miracles or that they had become Gods (as I believe some sycophantic courtiers said to their Roman emperors of the day), then first of all - none of those people were known primarily for their supernatural deeds. They were all known for, and became famous for, the perfectly ordinary human things they did throughout their lives. Roman emperors were known almost entirely for how they sent their troops into all sorts of battles, how they enacted various laws etc. with their courtiers and officials, how they married all sorts of people and had all sorts of children etc., all of whom are also traceable with normal human lives, etc. etc. And similarly in the case of various philosophers who were known for the philosophical theories they espoused.

Secondly - none of those people are of any practical importance to the daily lives of almost anyone alive today. It does not matter at all if Socrates or Nero turned out to be fictional. 99.999% of all people on earth today would not be remotely interested or care one iota if you told them Socrates and Nero might only be fictional figures. They are completely irrelevant to the lives of almost everyone.

Contrast that with Jesus - firstly, the only description that we have of Jesus is that which comes from the bible. And that description, unlike the example of Roman emperors or ancient philosophers, is overwhelmingly that of a supernatural figure. The whole point of all the biblical stories, is that Jesus is famous as the supernatural scion of Yahweh in heaven, and everything he does is either a direct supernatural miracle, or the pronouncement of some amazing superhuman insight. And almost all the other details, are simply settings leading up to those miracles and prophetic sayings. Eg, Jesus goes to some place with certain disciples and then performs a miracles for which the disciples are amazed. Or Jesus is in some situation with disciples and others, and there he makes some brilliant spoken insight (which his disciples often fail to comprehend because the insight is said to be so brilliant and wondrous).

Secondly regarding Jesus - entirely unlike any Roman’s emperor or any philosopher, Jesus is probably the single most important individual in all of human history. As the basis of Christianity, he directly affects even the daily life of every single person on the planet. Not just the many millions of devout Christians, but even all atheists, where democratic western governments in Christian nations such as the USA (and all across Europe) are highly influenced by input, lobbying, and appeals from the Christian Church. That has a very direct affect on worldwide government policy, in everything from taxation, to education, to scientific research, and even in wars and military conflicts. So as the entire basis of worldwide Christianity, Jesus is exceedingly important, even to the direct influence of almost all of us alive today on this planet. That is out of all comparison with & out of all recognition with any ancient philosophers or any ancient Roman emperors etc.

And just so that we are completely clear on the point of this - the point is that various other people, such as philosophers, may indeed have been only fictional figures, and nobody would care for one moment. They are totally irrelevant to the lives of almost everyone today. So nobody is going waste any breath arguing with you if you say (for example) that Pythagoras was never a real person … because it’s of no consequence at all - nobody cares if he was real or not.

But you try taking a survey of whether people care if Jesus was real, especially in the USA where many people on forums like this are arguing from, and you will find people not only do care a great deal about the existence of Jesus, many will in fact be incandescent with rage if you even attempt to suggest that Jesus might not have been real (try taking a street survey anywhere in the USA).

So to summarise all that - there are two reason why your analogy is wholly and completely wrong -

1. None of those philosophers or emperors etc were primarily known for their supernatural miraculous nature. They were entirely known for their non-supernatural acts. That is the total opposite of Jesus.

2. Some of those figures of ancient history may indeed have been imaginary, but nobody cares about them, so people can’t be bothered to argue about it - they are all quite irrelevant to 99.999% of people today. But again that is the absolute opposite of the case with Jesus - in the Jesus case, he has assumed such huge and direct importance for everyone today, that people most certainly can and do now take the trouble to check and point out that there is in fact no evidence of this claimed supernatural messiah.

The last criticism would override only some points, when the evangelist is doing apology of his Master or is putting in front his personal theology. Gonzalo Puente Ojea (http://www.laicismo.org/listado.php?tg=1477), who was the historian I quoted -and forgotten to name-, agree on this point. But he adds:.

...etc for quote.


This is a criterion for admit some events narrated in the Gospels as presumably historical. Especially the death by crucifixion of a man called Jesus mythologized by his disciples. What do you think of this criterion and its application to the problem of Jesus’ existence as a man? I’m interested in your answer to this question.

I’m really not sure what you are getting at there. But if you do want an answer from me, then I will look at that in another reply. However, afaik there is no evidence for any crucifixion. Though, in contrast, there are clear references in the OT prophesising that the messiah will be persecuted and disowned by his own Jewish people, and perhaps even persecuted unto death (I have given the OT refs here several times before).

 

[jhunter1163]

Is it just me, or do most of the mythicists' arguments boil down to saying "Nuh-uh!" in the face of historical scholarship?